On Monday, the Chargers announced their November ballot proposal for a new stadium was dead.

Union-Tribune

No change, yet, for Qualcomm stadium.

Well, actually, in typical Chargers Speak, they were less clear on the status, suggesting while they could not save the deal they would leave it on life support in the hopes someone else might have the cure. Meanwhile, blaming, it seemed, everyone but themselves for the failure.

Across town, their partners from the public sector, the city's elected officials, showed little emotion. After years of concentrating on damage control, this group sounded like they had developed a bunker mentality and were delighted this was one problem that a mercy killing had removed from their scope of responsibility. Those who expressed an opinion seemed to be saying that the city had bigger problems. Which gives the image of officials who are saying that walking and chewing gum at the same time are simply too much to expect of anyone.

Unfortunately, in this complex world, problems do not align themselves in an orderly fashion and present themselves one at a time. They come fast and furious and those who have not showed an ability to be proactive must then be reactive or lose any control of the situation. Problems not addressed far more often only get worse.

So on Monday, we came to see that this valuable community asset, a professional sports franchise, was now in jeopardy, if not dead, because the people responsible had not proven up to the challenge.

Whether you are a football fan or not, having an NFL team does offer much to the community. Perhaps it is a chance to bond with parents, by attending games together, as the arrival of the Chargers over 40 years ago offered me. Or, it may be the fellowship at a tailgate party with friends, or cheering for the home team. It is entertainment and it adds to the quality of life for all of us.

So what happened?

The proposal presented by the Chargers had material flaws, from the beginning, that unless corrected were likely to turn into terminal flaws.

The biggest flaw was the desire to retain the present site. It is understandable that this was the Chargers' first choice. After all, it was the Padres' first choice. The Mission Valley location has worked in the past so why change, was their logic. But the site also presents the Chargers with sufficient land to build 6,000 residential units as well as a hotel, commercial and office space.

Let's face it, this proposal was never about building a stadium, that was a red herring. This was a real estate development proposal. Why? Well, the Chargers, or more to the point, the Spanos family has been very successful in real estate. In fact, it could be argued, far more successful in real estate than in the operations of a football team.

Then there are the economic opportunities. Let's "follow the money."

If you build 6,000 units and are able to make a gross profit of $200,000 on each unit, that amounts to $1.2 billion – and that's billion with a "B". That is far more then a football team and a stadium would earn over a century of operations.

Now, $200,000 may seem high as a profit figure, but if you have free land, a waiver of building permit fees, a cap on infrastructure costs and a fast-tracked environmental impact report – it is probably a fair estimate.

The potential gross profit of $1.2 billion is far more than the costs the Chargers have proposed to pay by perhaps double. It leaves a tidy sum for them and their development partners.

Now this doesn't pencil out if the Chargers have to pay for the land – the risk/reward ratio is simply not there.

However, the city can't give the land away either. First, the City Council has at least discussed in closed sessions pledging much of the site as collateral to guarantee the court-ordered payment the city agreed to pay to the pension plan as part of its legal settlement. Whether the land is encumbered now remains unclear in a city still not fully embracing full disclosure to the public. Either way, the site has split ownership and each owner represents the public, which has a right to expect full payment for the sale of any public asset. So the city cannot give this asset away of even sell it at a deep discount.

Are the Chargers right, that this obstacle was the fatal flaw that led to the death of their proposal?

It doesn't have to be; there are several possible solutions.

One tried and true solution is to get someone else to pay for the land. Who? Well, how about the state of California?

In San Diego, about 80 percent of property taxes collected belong to the state of California. But in a redevelopment district as downtown is in, close to 100 percent of the new taxes collected stay in the city and are used to make the payments on bonds that benefit city developments.

The Padres originally desired to stay in Mission Valley, but changed direction when they came to understand this principle of tax splitting. In their case, the city raised $209 million and the city's redevelopment agency, CCDC, raised close to $100 million, based on anticipated revenues from the development around the ballpark. The area is in a redevelopment district.

There are locations downtown worthy of consideration. The former Balboa Stadium site is large enough for a stadium, and the parking could be accommodated across the freeway on the former Navy Hospital site. This parking might very will solve the need for additional parking in Balboa Park. The current proposal is for a three-level, underground structure on that valuable piece of San Diego heritage.

San Francisco built its new ballpark on state tidelands property. A similar suggestion made here was met with a well-orchestrated demonstration by those who like the status quo. They had no desire for the idea to even be looked at too closely. But such a location might also accommodate a badly needed extension of our convention center, similar to what was done in St. Louis.

There are other possibilities – a joint powers agreement between county and city, similar to the one that made the new ballpark in Denver possible, could be considered.

Another idea would be for a new redevelopment district. A redevelopment district was originally part of the Chargers proposal for the Qualcomm location but the site never qualified for this classification. The Chargers dropped the redevelopment district proposal without acknowledging that it eliminated the Qualcomm site as a viable possibility.

The solution of a redevelopment district somewhere is not new, it is not even original to San Diego.

Twenty years ago when a very popular mayor, Pete Wilson, was unable to win a vote to build a new convention center, he establishd a public committee to explore other options. It was made up of four or five government agencies, which met in public on Friday mornings in the City Council chambers and discussed what possible solutions existed. From this came the very complex solution involving swaps of land with the Navy and financial assistance from the Port of San Diego and others.

This is the real solution – a public discussion of all potential sites. None should he yelled down by special interest who do not wish to have their present favorable uses and favorable fees come under the pubic spotlight or, worse, to have their uses compared to other public uses that might prove more beneficial.

The council and other elected officials have appointed themselves to be part of the city's negotiating committee – these are fine men and women and many of whom I'm pleased to call my friend. But they have their plates filled with, as they have said, projects and challenges of higher priorities.

They also were not elected for their financial backgrounds. They should concentrate on other challenges and appoint from the city and invite other government agencies, the county, the Navy, the Port, CCDC and perhaps others to appoint representatives from the private sector, to begin public discussion on how and where a new stadium might work.

Done correctly, a stadium is not an expense, it is an investment opportunity. This opportunity is similar to the one the ballpark offered us when it was discussed a decade ago. The ballpark district's present success has been proven, and will be for an unlimited time into the future, as its contributions to the city's general fund rise above $100 million a year and continue to increase. In 25 years, the valuable piece of property the ballpark occupies will become city property, lock stock and barrel.

The stadium offers us this same opportunity. We just need the leadership and vision to grab this golden ring before it passes us by.

Davis was the chairman of CCDC during the Padres negotiations. He has served as chairman of the Port, chairman of the Bank of Commerce, and twice ran for mayor.